Criminal – Arson – Witness testimony

Where, in an arson case, the government seeks to introduce into evidence (1) the testimony of a witness as to what he saw on the morning of the fire and (2) his testimony that the defendant, in person and as seen in a surveillance video, appears to be similar in size, shape and dress to the person seen, I hold that this evidence should be allowed, as the testimony is not unfairly prejudicial and is probative of whether the defendant is, in fact, the same person the witness saw and also of whether the defendant was at the scene of the crime shortly before the crime occurred.